DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to an Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection filed 2/11/2026 and a Examiner’s Interview held 2/20/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 13, and 17 were amended. Claim 9 was cancelled. Claims 19-21 are new.
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 3/1/2024. Examiner notes the priority documents to JP2024-031294 have been received by the USPTO.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner’s Amendment
An examiner’s amendment to the record appears below. The proposed changes were discussed during an Examiner Interview with Attorney Surinder Sachar 2/20/2026. Authorization for the examiner’s amendment was given in the interview of 2/20/2026.
The application has been amended as follows:
Claim 2. The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein
the host is configured to transmit, to the storage device, a third command to execute an analysis relating to garbage collection for the host,
the controller is configured to execute the analysis in response to the third command received,
the host is configured to transmit, to the storage device, a fourth command to obtain results of the analysis,
the controller is configured to notify the host of the results of the analysis in response to the fourth command received, and
the host is configured to transmit the first command to the storage device, based on the results of the analysis.
Claim 13. An information processing system comprising:
a host; and
a storage device connected to the host and capable of communicating with the host, based on a universal flash storage (UFS) standard, wherein
the storage device includes a nonvolatile memory and a controller,
the nonvolatile memory includes a plurality of memory cells each of which stores one or more bits of data,
the controller is configured to:
write, in a first write mode, one bit of data to each of the plurality of memory cells, and write, in a second write mode, multiple bits of data to each of the plurality of memory cells; and
manage a relationship between each of pieces of data stored in the nonvolatile memory and one of a plurality of tags each indicating a characteristic of data,
the nonvolatile memory includes a swap area storing data that is not selected as an execution target of garbage collection triggered by the controller, is written in the first write mode, and corresponds to a first tag included in a write command received from the host,
the host is configured to transmit, to the storage device, a first command to execute garbage collection,
the controller is configured to:
start the garbage collection in response to the first command received; and
record progress of the garbage collection in accordance with the garbage collection in progress,
the host is configured to transmit, to the storage device, a second command to confirm the progress,
the controller is configured to notify the host of the progress in response to the second command received,
the host is configured to transmit, to the storage device, a third command to execute an analysis relating to garbage collection for the host,
the controller is configured to execute the analysis in response to the third command received,
the host is configured to transmit, to the storage device, a fourth command to obtain results of the analysis,
the controller is configured to notify the host of the results of the analysis in response to the fourth command received,
the host is configured to transmit the first command to the storage device, based on the results of the analysis, and
the third command includes information designating a garbage collection mode for the first command to be transmitted based on the results of the analysis executed in accordance with the third command.
Claim 14. The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein
the host is configured to transmit, to the storage device, fifth command to restrict garbage collection on data stored in a corresponding storage area, and
the controller is configured to prioritize execution of garbage collection for storage areas that are not designated by the fifth command received.
Claim 15. The information processing system according to claim 14, wherein the fifth command includes at least one of:
information designating one or more storage areas among a plurality of storage areas that are included in the nonvolatile memory;
information indicative of one tag among the plurality of tags; and
information designating a priority with which each of one or more storage areas is selected as a target for the garbage collection, the one or more storage areas being identified by the fifth command.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim recites the limitation ‘the results include: a ratio of a storage area in which the garbage collection to be executed based on the first command to the target storage area of the garbage collection based on the first command; and a total size of data copied in the garbage collection to be executed based on the first command’ within the context of claims 1 and 16 from which the claims depend, and where “the results” are results delivered in response to the third command to execute an analysis relating to garbage collection.
Thus, this limitation collects results that are attribute information including (1) a ratio of (1.a) ‘a storage area in which garbage collections is to be executed based on the first command’ compared (1.b) ‘to the target storage area of the garbage collection to be designated in the first command’, and (2) a total size of data copied in the garbage collection to be executed based on the first command. It is not clear how the results can be returned for a garbage collection command to be executed in the future that is not yet present when the results are computed, thus the meets and bounds of the claim are net definite and the claim is indefinite.
Furthermore, claims 3 and 17 recite the limitation ‘the results include: a ratio of a storage area in which the garbage collection to be executed based on the first command to the target storage area of the garbage collection to be designated in the first command’ Thus the attribute information appears to be the following ratio:
storage area in which the garbage collection to be executed
___________________________________________________
area of the garbage collection executed based on the first command
where the “first command” is “a first command to execute garbage collection” that has not yet been executed. The ‘storage area in which the garbage collection to be executed’ in interpreted as the total storage area that is the target of the garbage collection. Consistent with para [0162] of the instant application, the ‘area of the garbage collection executed’ is also interpreted as the total storage area that is the target of the garbage collection (given the first cmd has not been executed when the attribute information is returned). Thus this value would always be 1. Thus it is not clear what applicant intends to claim, and the claim is indefinite.
Applicant appears to be attempting to claim concepts presented in [0106] of the instant application ‘The dirty status indicates a ratio of storage areas from which data is to be copied according to the garbage collection to storage areas analyzed based on the GC analysis command. The total size of data to be copied when the garbage collection is executed indicates the total size of valid data stored in the target storage areas of the garbage collection among the storage areas analyzed based on the GC analysis command.’ Thus there is not a separate ratio, and a value that represents ‘a total size of data copied in the garbage collection”. Instead, the specification discloses a single ratio that discloses the total size of data to be copied by the garbage collection command compared to the total size of the storge areas analyzed by the GC analysis. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted claims 3 and 17 to claim ‘the results include a ratio of the total size of data to be copied by the garbage collection command compared to the total size of the storge areas analyzed by the GC analysis.
Examiner requests applicant explain where support is for the claim limitation in the specification and detail how the text supports the claim limitation to clarify the claim limitation.
Claims 20-21 are rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement. These claims depend from rejected claims 3 and 17 and fail to cure the deficiencies of their respective base claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 10-15 are allowed.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 13, the claims have been amended to incorporate subject matter from now cancelled claims that were identified as allowable in the Non-Final Rejection of 11/14/2025.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10-12, and 14-15, the claims are allowable based on their dependence from allowed claims 1 and 13 from which they depend.
Reasons for Not Applying Art
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for not applying art:
Regarding claims 3 and 17, the prior art does not teach ‘the results include a ratio of the total size of data to be copied by the garbage collection command compared to the total size of the storge areas analyzed by the GC analysis’ within the context of the claims that detail the results are returned in response to an analysis command use to schedule a garbage collection command. An updated search failed to identify a teaching or suggestion
Regarding claims 21 and 20, the prior art does not teach the claims based on their dependence from claims 3 and 17, which are not seen in the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 35 U.S.C 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Bi (Bi US 2023/0195362 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Bi teaches A host (Bi [0002] discloses a host initiated garbage collection.) configured to: be connectable to a storage device; (Bi Fig. 1 and [0013]-[0014] that discloses Memory System 110 ) transmit, to the storage device, a command to execute an analysis relating to garbage collection; (Bi [0035] discloses a first vendor command to request the fragmentation status that is an example of a command to execute analysis relating to garbage collection, given fragmentation is used to trigger garbage collection per Bi [Abstract]. Bi [0039] discloses the fragmentation parameter may represent the percentage of memory of the total memory cells that may be garbage collected, thus execute analysis (computes a percentage) relating to garbage collection.)
obtain results of the analysis from the storage device; and based on the obtained results of the analysis, transmit, to the storage device, a first command to execute garbage collection. (Bi [0053] discloses in response to receiving the status indicating a fragmentation parameter which may be based on the results of the % of garbage collection completed (i.e. based on the analysis), the host may transmit the second vendor command that initiates garbage collection (i.e. the first command).)
Regarding claim 18, Bi teaches all of the Limitations of claim 16 above. Bi further teaches wherein the host is capable of communicating with the storage device, based on a universal flash storage (UFS) standard. (Bi [0017] discloses the host and Memory System 110 communicate using a UFS interface, thus is based on the UFS standard.)
Regarding claim 19, Bi teaches all of the Limitations of claim 16 above. Bi further teaches wherein the command includes information designating a garbage collection mode for the first command to be transmitted based on the results of the analysis executed in accordance with the command. (Examiner notes that consistent with para [0125] of the instant application a garbage collection mode may be a write mode for the garbage collection process. Bi [0040] further teaches that the first vendor command that is an example of “the command” that performs analysis may include a write command to store the status of the memory device at a first buffer or a second buffer.)
Response to Remarks
Examiner thanks applicant for their claim amendments and remarks of 2/11/2026. They have been fully considered.
The Rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112
Examiner notes that the claim amendments do clarify that the ratio is in reference to a target storage area of the future garbage collection command to be designated in the “first command” which follows in time after the “third command”. Thus partially addresses the 112 indefinite rejection.
However, Applicant appears to believe there are three value in the claims, including two values that make up a ratio, and a third value that is “a total size of data copied in the future garbage collection command”. As detailed above, Examiner believes there are only two values to claim, where the two values make up the ratio. Applicant appears to be attempting to claim concepts presented in [0106] of the instant application ‘The dirty status indicates a ratio of storage areas from which data is to be copied according to the garbage collection to storage areas analyzed based on the GC analysis command.’ The specification does not disclose a separate ratio, and additionally a value that represents ‘a total size of data copied in the garbage collection”. Instead, the specification discloses a single ratio that discloses the total size of data to be copied by the garbage collection command compared to the total size of the storge areas analyzed by the GC analysis.
The Indication of Allowable Subject Matter and the Prior Art Rejections
Examiner agrees that independent claims 1 and 13 have been amended to incorporate the subject matter indicated as allowable in the Office Action. Thus independent claims 1 and 13, and dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10-12, and 14-15 are noted as allowable in the above office action.
Examiner notes that no amendments were made to independent claim 16 and/or 18 that were rejected in the Non-Final rejection of 11/14/2026, and thus are currently rejected as detailed above.
New claim 19 is rejected as detailed above due to Bi. New claims 20-21 are rejected as indefinite as detailed above. Examiner notes claims 3 and 17 would be allowable subject matter if interpreted based on the examiner’s suggested claim amendments to the ratio claim description, and thus claims 20 and 21 would be allowable subject matter based on this dependency.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE M. GIROUARD whose telephone number is (469)295-9131. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 - 7:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tim Vo can be reached at 571-272-3642. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JANICE M. GIROUARD/Examiner, Art Unit 2138